Ed Davies

Maybe want to be a bit selective with pushfit valves - I've had a couple where the plastic bit where the screwdriver blade goes scrunch up after only a few operations. I used metal ones after that.

Presumably it would help if you let the slab cool down, turn on the heating then do the mopping soon after so the heat hasn't had quite so much time spread?

That 737MAX video is good as far as it goes but the whole story is a lot more complicated than it makes out. Take with a pinch of salt. More discussion here if you're interested: https://fearoflanding.com/accidents/accident-reports/lionair-flight-610-the-maintenance/ I'm looking forward to more on that blog. As with most aviation accidents there were a lot of separate causes which had to line up to make those two happen.

You'd need thermal camera (or at least a scanner) as well. Software can't magically make a sensor designed to detect less than 1 µm radiation detect 10 µm radiation (not least because the lens of a normal camera is opaque to thermal IR).

“spacer”?

Perhaps Rockwool between and PIR inside would be better from the giving-any-water-a-path-to-evaporate point of view.

Right. Of course the proper testing will have to be done at some time by somebody who is qualified to do it; this is just an exercise to reduce the risk of having to rework other stuff and waste the sparks time if there is a cable fault. I did write “after second fix” when perhaps I should have written “when the sparks is on site for second fix”.

That confused me in their specs, what's the difference between rated and maximum power? I was looking at their smallest non-inverter one and it had an even bigger variation (1.5 kW “rated”, 2.25 kW “maximum”). What would make it run at different power levels (other than startup, I assume that's not what this is about)?

Personally, I'd use a longish bit of flex. Connect one end to the end of the cable to be checked (e.g, with @Mr Punter's Wagos), L-L, N-N, E-E, and take the other end to the other end of the cable then check with a meter continuity L-L, N-N, E-E and discontinuity L-N, N-E, E-L. Checking the discontinuities actually looking at the resistances (on a highish range) might be better than just relying on it not beeping but I'm not sure I'd bother.

Totally OTT for the basic cable integrity checks needed here for which a basic multimeter would be fine. Yes, in theory you might have abrasion on the cable or a screw through it just next to a conductor which won't show anything on the meter but which will break down at 500 V on a mega but the chances of that are so slim that you're better off putting up with the tiny risk that it'll happen and not be detected until the sparks does the proper testing after second fix.

This comment is off the main topic here (which is about stuff before the meter tails) and also fails at basic logic; it's not true that ∀A, B: (A => B) => (B => A). Yes, if you comply with BS7671 you'll be deemed to comply with the relevant building regs but it doesn't follow that if you comply with building regs then you must have complied with BS7671. There are other ways to comply with BRs though they'd be hard work to prove and just complying with BS7671 is by far the simplest and easiest solution in almost all cases.

In my limited experience (of trying to check whether Scottish Water had a pipe by the road where my road opening was going) their official system is broken. When I found their local office (the SW website had an address which was nearly a decade out of date) and went there they couldn't have been more helpful. Few minutes wait in reception then an engineer took me to his office, called up their plans on his computer, confirmed they didn't have a pipe where I wanted a hole then discussed various options if I wanted a connection.

Why can't you just move the tube?

Indeed, it just describes the mechanism. Let's remember what the discussion here is about: @SteamyTea's original question was about the mechanism by which certain trace gasses in the atmosphere “trap” heat and how to convince somebody that they can have an effect. As I see it, there are two parts to this question: a) what's happening on the atomic and molecular scale as photons of various wavelengths get absorbed and emitted and b) the slightly wider issue of whether there's enough gasses present to have much effect. @SteamyTea is more interested in a). I'm willing to take hand-wavy explanations about molecular bonds and molecules with three or more atoms, etc, on trust because I know there's a vast amount of physics which has been done around this subject going back nearly 200 years and that if climate scientists were getting things wrong in this area there'd be a huge number of other physicists, astronomers, engineers and so on telling us all so. As far as I know nobody with even a smidgen of credibility has raised any serious doubts in this area. I'm more interested in b) as it's something somebody could reasonably have some doubts about until shown some simple facts about how much of these “trace” gasses are actually present.

I have the 7m [¹] version of these which I've found very handy: https://www.aluminium-scaffoldtowers.co.uk/diy-access-tower-sale Rock solid up to 5m, OK at 6m, makes me a bit nervous at 7m. It's supposed to be a two-person job to assemble but with a bit of practice I can put it up to full height or take it down in about 20 minutes on my own. [¹] That's the maximum reach height which is deemed to be 2m above the platform height (i.e., 5m max). Top of handrail is 1m above the platform so 6m maximum.

Indeed, but not much. Suppose his bucket is 200mm across and his pipe is 8mm ID then the proportional change will be R²/r² = 100**2/4**2 = 625. I.e., his measuring staff would have to be 625mm off its initial position to get 1mm of error. If the initial position was in the middle of the stick it wouldn't be long enough to get that much error. 1mm is probably about the level of accuracy you can read the water level anyway. Still, the moral of this tale is to use a wide bucket rather than a tall one. Most of the water in his container is contributing nothing to the proceedings.

I'm sceptical. A quick scan of the specs for the UT363-S didn't give the numbers but generally the problem with these cheap anemometers is that they don't have the resolution to make meaningful measurements at the low air flow rates typical of MVHR so they need the speed “amplified” by by concentrating it in a smaller area. As you say, that'll unbalance the flow a bit though how much is an open question. Also, if you're doing the same thing measuring all of the vents it cancels out, at least a bit. I agree with you; use the 70mm diameter. The diameter of the 125mm pipe is irrelevant, you'd hope to get the same reading if you used 200mm pipe, for example.

Sure, the UK FiT was a relatively small part of the global market but it was a contribution together with the German and other European schemes and the US tax breaks & net metering.

They've been replacing NiCds with lithium of some sort during recent US segment EVAs. Not sure of what sort of lithium.

Do EVs count as automatics for driving test/licensing purposes?

It's only quantum mechanics, of course there should be a simple explanation. ?

Which says so the first time you get distracted for half an hour you write off a battery. Excellent.

To be clear, I wasn't (just) swearing here: I was using “bullshit” in the sense described here.

Which, yet again, entirely misses the point that it's the height in the atmosphere at which the absorbed (and convected) heat is re-emitted that matters. Also, the bands which are captured are not discrete. They are overlapping and smeared out. With more CO₂ more energy is captured in the edges of the bands. Also, also, it's well understood that increasing amounts of CO₂ have proportionally smaller effects. That's completely implicit in the way in which climate sensitivity is discussed in terms of the temperature increase for a doubling of CO₂: it's not specifically doubling from pre-industrial (270 to 280 ppmv to 540 to 580 ppmv), it's any doubling say from the last glacial maximum of 180 ppmv to 360 ppmv or the next doubling from around 550 ppmv to 1100 ppmv. Indeed, it's entirely possible that a warmer Earth with more CO₂ would overall be “better” in the sense of sustaining more life. But with 7+ billion people currently on the planet right now the adaptation needed to deal with the change would likely be much more harmful in the short term (next few decades to centuries).

Yes, elegantly simple. Just complete bullshit.